[2025:RJ-JP:19331] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 86/2025 In S.B. Criminal Appeal No.96/2025 1. Vikram Singh S/o Padamsingh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dungar Sikrai, Police Station, Manpur, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail, Dausa). 2. Uttam Singh S/o Padam Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dungar Sikrai, Police Station, Manpur, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ( At Present Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail, Dausa). 3. Uday Singh S/o Padam Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Dungar Sikrai, Police Station, Manpur, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ( At Present Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail, Dausa). 4. Padam Singh S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dungar Sikrai, Police Station, Manpur, District Dausa, Rajasthan. ( At Present Accused Appellant Confined In District Jail, Dausa). 5. Mrs. Shrikanwar W/o Padamsingh, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Dungar Sikrai, Police Station, Manpur, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Appellant Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/05/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (2 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] 1. The instant application for suspension of sentence is preferred by appellants-Vikram Singh S/o Padamsingh, Uttam Singh S/o Padam Singh, Uday Singh S/o Padam Singh, Padam Singh S/o Ramsingh and Mrs. Shrikanwar W/o Padamsingh in pending appeal filed aggrieved from order of conviction and sentence dated 05.12.2024 in Sessions Case No.62/2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikari, Dausa whereby appellants- Uttam Singh were convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 326 and 307 IPC and appellants Vikram Singh, Uday Singh, Padam Singh and Mrs. Shrikanwar were convicted for offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149, 326/149 and 307/149 IPC and sentenced accordingly. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants are innocent persons and falsely implicated by complainant party due to animosity. He further submitted cross FIR No.88/2020 was registered at same P.S. for the incident wherein after investigation police has filed charge-sheet against injured and complainant party. He further submitted that in cross-case learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted Laxman, Chandra Singh, Malkhan, Amar, Vijendra under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149 and 427 IPC. He also submitted that the accused persons have also suffered injuries and the prosecution has failed to explain the reasons of injury. He further submitted that judgment dated 05.12.2024 in instant case and also in cross-sessions case No.35/2022 indicated that this is a case of free fight wherein the complainant party Laxman Singh and others were aggressors and they assaulted the appellants. He further referred the evidence [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (3 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] and story of prosecution and submitted that prosecution was required to show the genesis of incident and also aggressor party but prosecution has miserably failed in establishing that present appellants were aggressors. He further referred the evidence and submitted that recovery of weapon was effected from three accused on three different occasions from some houses and recovery witnesses are police personnel. He also referred the cross-examination of IO and submitted that his admission clearly indicated that he has not taken care about recovery process. He further referred the short-comings of investigation and submitted that recovered weapons were neither identified not sent to examination to FSL. He also referred the evidence and suggested that as per injured Vijendra deadly assault was committed by Padam Singh whereas judgment reflect that deadly assault was committed by Uttam Singh. He further referred the medical evidence and submitted that there is no evidence to suggest that any of injury was dangerous to life. He also referred the language of FIR and submitted that after legal consultation, this report was registered after a delay of 17 hours. He further referred evidence of PW-6 and submitted that as per report, 12-13 persons were involved in the incident but police has filed charge-sheet against five persons. He further referred cross-examination of PW-14 injured Vijendra and submitted that Padam Singh has made assault with kulhadi but police has recovered stick from him. He further referred cross-examination of PW-17 (IO) and submitted that short-comings were admitted by him. At last, he submitted that appellants were on bail during trial and they have never misused the liberty granted to them [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (4 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted custody certificates and same are taken on record. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. Also perused judgment dated 05.12.2024 in sessions case No.35/2022. 5. On the basis of report Ex.P-1 submitted by Amar Singh (PW- 1), FIR No.87/2020 was registered at P.S. Manpur Dist. Dausa under Sections 147, 148, 149, 343, 307 IPC on 07.05.2020 for incident of 06.05.2020. After investigation, a charge-sheet has been filed against five persons. The cross-case was registered by Padam Singh on 07.05.2020 as FIR No.88/2020 wherein also the police has filed charge-sheet against five persons. 6. In the instant case, after framing charge, prosecution has examined 19 witnesses and exhibited 61 documents along with six articles. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they have not submitted any defence evidence. 10 documents were exhibited in defence from Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. Learned trial court has convicted appellants accused under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 324/149, 325/149, 326, 326/149 and 307 or 307/149 IPC. The maximum sentence awarded to each of the appellants is 10 years. 7. In cross-case No.35/2022, Laxman, Chandra Singh, Malkhan, Amar, Vijendra were convicted under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149, 325/149 and 427 IPC but they were released on probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 8. The injured were medically examined by PW-10 Dr. Gajraj Singh and he deposed that on 06.05.2020,. he has examined [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (5 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] Amar Singh, Malkhan Singh, Chandra Singh, Laxman Singh, Mahendra, Guddi, Vijendra Singh, Dhanesh Kanwar, Chandresh, Girdhar Singh and Mamta. The evidence also suggested that injury Nos. 1 and 3 upon Vijendra Singh were caused by sharp edged weapon whereas others by blunt object. Injury Nos. 2 and 3 of Vijendra were found to be grievous in nature. Similarly injury No.2 of Amar Singh was found to be grievous in nature. As per X-ray report, injuries Nos. 2 and 3 of Mahendra Singh were found to be grievous in nature. As per X-ray report injury No.2 upon Girdhar Singh is found to be grievous in nature. The admission of PW-10 also indicated that on very same day, he has examined appellants as they were injured in another cross-case. 9. We have considered evidence of PW-1 Amar Singh, PW-6 Mahendra Singh and PW-14 Vijendra Singh. We have gone through the statement of PW-17 Mangi Lal (IO). The issue of defective investigation can only be considered that the time of final adjudication but not at this stage. The findings of learned trial court about role and involvement can only be considered at the time of final adjudication. The grounds raised by counsel for appellant can only be considered at the time of final adjudication. 10. Herein this case, no criminal antecedents is reported against the appellants. The judgment in cross-case is also placed on record. The appellants were on bail during trial and disposal of appeal will take its own time. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on merits of the case, therefore it is appropriate to release appellants on bail. 11. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits, I am of considered view that it is a fit case wherein appellants can be [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (6 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] enlarged on bail. The application under Section 430(1) B.N.S.S. is allowed and sentence of appellants accused- Vikram Singh S/o Padamsingh, Uttam Singh S/o Padam Singh, Uday Singh S/o Padam Singh, Padam Singh S/o Ramsingh and Mrs. Shrikanwar W/o Padamsingh is suspended till disposal of appeal with the condition that each of them would execute a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance in this court on 18.08.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:- 1. After release of appellant on bail, they will not indulge in any criminal activity and if it is found that they are involved in any criminal activity, the order shall be recalled. 2. That they will appear before the trial Court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided. 3. That if the applicant(s) changes the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court. 4. Similarly, if the sureties change their address(s),they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court. 12. Misc. Application stands disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:19331] (7 of 7) [SOSA-86/2025] 13. A copy of this order be sent to learned trial court through E- mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /12